Dataset Information

Barriers and facilitators to diabetic retinopathy screening within Australian primary care.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite recent incentives through Medicare (Australia's universal health insurance scheme) to increase retinal screening rates in primary care, comprehensive diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening has not been reached in Australia. The current study aimed to identify key factors affecting the delivery of diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening in Australian general practices.

Methods

A descriptive qualitative study involving in-depth interviews was carried out from November 2019 to March 2020. Using purposive snowballing sampling, 15 general practitioners (GPs) were recruited from urban and rural general practices in New South Wales and Western Australia. A semi-structured interview guide was used to collect data from participants. All interviews were conducted over the phone by one facilitator, and each interview lasted up to 45 min. The Socio-Ecological Model was used to inform the content of the interview topic guides and subsequent data analysis. Recorded data were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was conducted to identify and classify recurrent themes.

Results

Of 15 GPs interviewed, 13 were male doctors, and the mean age was 54.7 ± 15.5 years. Seven participants were practising in urban areas, while eight were practising in regional or remote areas. All participants had access to a direct ophthalmoscope, but none owned retinal cameras. None of the participants reported performing DR screening. Only three participants were aware of the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) items 12,325 and 12,326 that allow GPs to bill for retinal screening. Seven themes, a combination of facilitators and barriers, emerged from interviews with the GPs. Despite the strong belief in their role in managing chronic diseases, barriers such as costs of retinal cameras, time constraints, lack of skills to make DR diagnosis, and unawareness of Medicare incentives for non-mydriatic retinal photography made it difficult to conduct DR screening in general practice. However, several enabling strategies to deliver DR screening within primary care include increasing GPs' access to continuing professional development, subsidising the cost of retinal cameras, and the need for a champion ace to take the responsibility of retinal photography.

Conclusion

This study identified essential areas at the system level that require addressing to promote the broader implementation of DR screening, in particular, a nationwide awareness campaign to maximise the use of MBS items, improve GPs' competency, and subsidise costs of the retinal cameras for small and rural general practices.

SUBMITTER: Watson MJG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8630186 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesDiabetic retinopathy (DR) can cause significant visual impairment which can be largely avoided by early detection through proper screening and treatment. People with DR face a number of challenges from early detection to treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate factors that influence DR screening in Thailand and to identify barriers to follow-up compliance from patient, family member, and health care provider (HCP) perspectives.MethodsA total of 15 focus group discussions (FGDs) were held, each with five to twelve participants. There were three distinct stakeholders: diabetic patients (n = 47) presenting to a diabetic retinopathy clinic in Thailand, their family members (n = 41), and health care providers (n = 34). All focus group conversations were transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was used to examine textual material.ResultsDifferent themes emerged from the FGD on knowledge about diabetes, self-care behaviors of diabetes mellitus (DM), awareness about DR, barriers to DR screening, and the suggested solutions to address those barriers. Data showed lower knowledge and awareness about diabetes and DR in both patients and family members. Long waiting times, financial issues, and lack of a person to accompany appointments were identified as the major deterrents for attending DR screening. Family support for patients was found to vary widely, with some patients reporting to have received adequate support while others reported having received minimal support. Even though insurance covered the cost of attending diabetes/DR screening program, some patients did not show up for their appointments.ConclusionPatients need to be well-informed about the asymptomatic nature of diabetes and DR. Communication at the patient level and shared decision-making with HCPs are essential. Family members and non-physician clinicians (such as diabetes nurses, diabetes educators, physician assistants) who work in the field of diabetes play a vital role in encouraging patients to attend diabetes and DR follow-ups visits regularly.

Project description:ImportancePrimary care professionals (PCPs) have a central role in screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR), especially in settings where access to specialty eye care is limited. Data on current DR screening practice patterns in primary care are needed to inform screening strategies.ObjectivesTo assess the practice patterns of fundoscopic examination for DR screening in a large primary care network and to evaluate the sensitivity and accuracy of PCP fundoscopy for detecting DR.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective cohort study was performed using random sampling and manual review of electronic health records of PCP fundoscopic examination documentation compared with documentation of an examination performed by an eye care professional (ophthalmologist or optometrist) within 2 years before or after primary care encounters. From a single-institution primary care network of 28 clinics, 7449 adult patients with diabetes seen at least once in the primary care network in 2019 were eligible for this study. Data from 2001 encounters were abstracted from the electronic health record for a random sample of 767 patients. Data analysis was performed from January 2021 to May 2022.ExposureFundoscopic examination by PCPs.Main outcomes and measuresThe frequency of PCPs performing fundoscopy at least once in the calendar year for patients with diabetes. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify patient, clinician, and clinic factors associated with PCPs performing fundoscopy at least once in the calendar year. The PCP examination results were compared with diagnoses made by eye care professionals to assess the sensitivity and accuracy of the findings from PCP examinations.ResultsAmong the 767 adult patients with diabetes included in the analysis, 387 (50.5%) were female, and the median age was 64 years (IQR, 54-71 years). Primary care professionals documented a fundoscopic examination for 93 patients (12.1%); all results were documented as normal. When eye care professional examination results were used as the reference standard, the accuracy of PCP fundoscopic examination was 62.7% (95% CI, 50.0%-73.9%) and sensitivity for detecting disease was 0.0% (95% CI, 0.0%-14.9%). No patient demographic or clinical characteristics were associated with PCPs performing fundoscopy. In multivariable logistic regression, the number of PCP years in practice was associated with greater odds of patients receiving fundoscopy at least once in the year (adjusted odds ratio per 10 years in practice, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.01-1.59; P = .04); having nurse practitioner credentials was associated with lower odds of receiving fundoscopy (adjusted odds ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.04-0.79; P = .049; compared with having physician credentials); after adjusting for rural clinic location, clinic location in a primary care shortage area, and documentation of an up-to-date eye care professional examination by a PCP in the study year.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, fundoscopic examination was rarely performed and was not sensitive for detecting DR in primary care practice. Because the rate of DR screening by eye care professionals remains low, research to explore and break down barriers to the implementation of effective primary care-based DR screening strategies, such as teleretinal imaging, is needed to prevent vision loss from undiagnosed DR.

Project description:ImportanceDiabetic retinopathy is a major complication of diabetes for which regular screening improves visual health outcomes, yet adherence to screening is suboptimal.ObjectiveTo assess disparities in diabetic eye examination completion rates and evaluate barriers in those not previously screened.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cohort study at a single academic center (Johns Hopkins Hospital pediatric diabetes center in Baltimore, Maryland) from December 2018 to November 2019, youths with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who met criteria for diabetic retinopathy screening and were enrolled in a prospective observational trial implementing point-of-care diabetic retinopathy screening were asked about prior diabetic retinopathy screening.Main outcomes and measuresDemographic and clinical characteristics were compared between those who did and did not have a previous diabetic eye examination and stratified according to race/ethnicity, using t tests and χ2 tests. Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the association between race/ethnicity, screening, and other social determinants of health. A questionnaire assessing barriers to screening adherence was administered.ResultsOf 149 participants (76 male patients [51.0%]; mean [SD] age, 14.5 [2.3] years), 51 (34.2%) had not had a prior diabetic eye examination. These individuals were more likely than those who had prior diabetic eye examinations to be non-White youths (38 [75%] vs 31 [32%]; P < .001) and have type 2 diabetes (38 [75%] vs 10 [10%]; P < .001), Medicaid or public insurance (43 [84%] vs 31 [32%]; P < .001), lower household income (annual income ≤$25 000, 21 [41%] vs 9 [9%]; P < .001), and parents with education levels of high school or less (29 [67%] vs 22 [35%]; P < .001). The main barriers reported included not recalling being recommended to obtain a diabetic eye examination (19 [56%]), difficulty finding time for an additional appointment (10 [29%]), and transportation issues (7 [20%]). Minority youths were less likely to have a previous diabetic eye examination (non-White, 34 [46%] vs White, 64 [85%]; P < .001) and more likely to have diabetic retinopathy (11 [15%] v 2 [3%]; P = .008). Minority youths were less likely to get diabetic eye examinations even after adjusting for insurance, household income, and parental education level (odds ratio, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.10-0.79]; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, non-White youths were less likely to undergo diabetic eye examinations yet more likely to have diabetic retinopathy compared with White youths. Addressing barriers to diabetic retinopathy screening may improve access to diabetic eye examination and facilitate early detection.

Project description:BackgroundRecommended annual diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening for people with diabetes has low rates in the USA, especially in underserved populations. Telemedicine DR screening (TDRS) in primary care clinics could expand access and increase adherence. Despite this potential, studies have observed high variability in TDRS rates among clinics and over time, highlighting the need for implementation supports. Previous studies of determinants of TDRS focus on patients' perspectives, with few studies targeting upstream multi-level barriers and facilitators. Addressing this gap, this qualitative study aimed to identify and evaluate multi-level perceived determinants of TDRS in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), to inform the development of targeted implementation strategies.MethodsWe developed a theory-based semi-structured interview tool based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We conducted 22 key informant interviews with professionals involved in TDRS (administrators, clinicians, staff). The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Reported barriers and facilitators were organized into emergent themes and classified according to CFIR constructs. Constructs influencing TDRS implementation were rated for each study site and compared across sites by the investigators.ResultsProfessionals identified 21 main barriers and facilitators under twelve constructs of the five CFIR domains. Several identified themes were novel, whereas others corroborated previous findings in the literature (e.g., lack of time and human resources, presence of a champion). Of the 21 identified themes, 13 were classified under the CFIR's Inner Setting domain, specifically under the constructs Compatibility and Available Resources. Themes under the Outer Setting domain (constructs External Incentives and Cost) were primarily perceived by administrators, whereas themes in other domains were perceived across all professional categories. Two Inner Setting (Leadership Engagement, Goals and Feedback) and two Process (Champion, Engaging) constructs were found to strongly distinguish sites with high versus low TDRS performance.ConclusionsThis study classified barriers and facilitators to TDRS as perceived by administrators, clinicians, and staff in FQHCs, then identified CFIR constructs that distinguished high- and low-performance clinics. Implementation strategies such as academic detailing and collection and communication of program data and successes to leadership; engaging of stakeholders through involvement in implementation planning; and appointment of intervention champions may therefore improve TDRS implementation and sustainment in resource-constrained settings.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Managing polypharmacy is a challenge for healthcare systems globally. It is also a health inequality concern as it can expose some of the most vulnerable in society to unnecessary medications and adverse drug-related events. Care for most patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy occurs in primary care. Safe deprescribing interventions can reduce exposure to inappropriate polypharmacy. However, these are not fully accepted or routinely implemented. AIM:To identify barriers and facilitators to safe deprescribing interventions for adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in primary care. DESIGN & SETTING:A systematic review of studies published from 2000, examining safe deprescribing interventions for adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. METHOD:A search of electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINHAL), Cochrane, and Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) from inception to 26 Feb 2019, using an agreed search strategy. This was supplemented by handsearching of relevant journals, and screening of reference lists and citations of included studies. RESULTS:In total, 40 studies from 14 countries were identified. Cultural and organisational barriers included: a culture of diagnosing and prescribing; evidence-based guidance focused on single diseases; a lack of evidence-based guidance for the care of older people with multimorbidities; and a lack of shared communication, decision-making systems, tools, and resources. Interpersonal and individual-level barriers included: professional etiquette; fragmented care; prescribers' and patients' uncertainties; and gaps in tailored support. Facilitators included: prudent prescribing; greater availability and acceptability of non-pharmacological alternatives; resources; improved communication, collaboration, knowledge, and understanding; patient-centred care; and shared decision-making. CONCLUSION:A whole systems, patient-centred approach to safe deprescribing interventions is required, involving key decision-makers, healthcare professionals, patients, and carers.